5 ms·

>You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident Here is just one of many actually documented stories about nuclear contamination,

>You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident Here is just one of many actually documented stories about nuclear contamination, none of them are particularly funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident >I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 The problem isn't plant design. The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous and humans are often very sloppy, ignorant and greedy. This problem remains even if a plant would be entirely fault tolerant. >But what I'd really like to know is what exactly were the consequences if we just ignored the situation? If we ignored Chernobyl and nobody sacrificed their lives to stop the fire, my understanding is that it would still be burning and Europe would be mostly a uninhabitable hellhole today, with millions dead, immense numbers of birth defects and and a large percentage of the population would get cancers before age 30. Since it was stopped relatively quickly we have only had to deal with sanitation for 40+ years, in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. If the fallout areas were untreated, food from those areas would be classified as carcinogenic for decades. Some might think that Wyoming is far away, but a Chernobyl accident in Wyoming could devastate agriculture in Kansas, California, Canada - this can't be ignored. Surely it would be better for Wyoming to build hydrogen plants, photovoltaic panels and such. It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk.

roenxi 3y ago
Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up in arms about it and never hear the end of it. I'm not saying no risk, but I am saying negligible. Plenty of nasty stuff out there, and one more heap doesn't need serious attention. > If we ignored Chernobyl ... (1) Ok, so put the fire out. That isn't a half-trillion dollars in costs though. Where is this trillion dollars coming from, and what is it protecting against? (2) Everything causes cancer. Including, famously, a suit to have Starbucks coffee in California labelled as carcinogenic [0]. And coal dust causes cancer, which we've put up with for literal centuries. What are the actual risks are here? Carcinogens aren't a rare thing, a lot of people already die of cancer, because we're surrounded by them. A few more in exchange for the sort of upside nuclear promises is, observing the actual state of things, a good trade. So what are the real numbers you're talking? At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. Probably nat gas too. (3) Nobody is building plants like Chernobyl in this century. That design was from last century. (4) Bonus points, where are you getting this from? Because a lot of the scary post-Chernobyl modelling was done on a Linear-No-Threshold model that is a good case study in people applying excessive safety to nuclear, assuming that it is much more hazardous than we have any evidence for. > It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk. Nuclear would be cheaper if it was held to sane safety standards that are comparable to what we're putting up with literally right now. I've lived next to coal plants. That is worse for my health than if I had been living in Fukushima when the plant melted down. Nobody in my town was particularly worried about the risk though because that would be remarkably stupid. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-cancer-california-798750 https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-canc...
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Not at all, it was a mere 93 grams of misplaced material and just one of many many examples of this happening all over the world. The US generates 20 000 000 times as much high level waste every year, and luckily they spend the money required to keep it safe and not end up in the wrong places. >It isn't that dangerous. Think about it for a second - a nuclear fire during a few weeks in Ukraine has caused reindeer over 1000 miles away to be deemed unsuitable for human consumption for over 35 years. It really is mindboggling how far-reaching in both time and space that accident has been, and it wasn't even a worst-case scenario! Ignoring the facts and just stating out of the blue that "It's not that dangerous" might be a good coping mechanism but it's not factual. So, it's dangerous - and the danger should be weighed against the benefits compared to the options. As of at least now in 2024 we get cheaper electricity from solar panels even after converting solar electricity to hydrogen gas and back to electricity. So nuclear is not cost-competitive even when we ignore the trillion dollar risks it carries (No estimates for the cost of nuclear includes the cost of a disaster, governments take that risk from the operators). As we have seen the past few years in Europe it's also not very reliable. Plants in France, Finland and Sweden have gone offline several times during the year, taking with them a large percentage of the total electricity production of the countries they are in. Nuclear means many eggs in each basket so to speak. Why should we aim to build electricity sources that are expensive and vulnerable in addition to carrying a proven risk to food production for decades in a 1000 mile radius, when we already have cheaper options in the form of renewables and storage? If nuclear was 1/10th the cost of the safer options, I could see a point in debating the risks. But when it is actually MORE expensive? It makes absolutely no sense IMO.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  > At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. It's not a debate about coal vs nuclear. Nuclear is better than coal, but worse than renewables.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. Nuclear is uncompetitive but still in the conversation at the current absurdist standard. It'd be an easy winner on a realistic standard. The harm of nuclear and solar is similar (on average, about 0) but nuclear can deliver a lot more bang for buck. There is a two pronged argument against nuclear, one prong the somewhat ignorant argument that the risk is excessive and the other argument that it costs too much. If we use evidence and handle the risk to a sane standard, it is reasonable to expect it'll be dirt cheap and the other argument falls away. People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. All the places that have heavily invested in solar have gut-wrenchingly high electricity prices. If nuclear was given a fair shot it's got a great chance of winning the fight for the power source with the best cost-benifit ratio.

roenxi 3y ago

Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up in arms about it and never hear the end of it. I'm not saying no risk, but I am saying negligible. Plenty of nasty stuff out there, and one more heap doesn't need serious attention. > If we ignored Chernobyl ... (1) Ok, so put the fire out. That isn't a half-trillion dollars in costs though. Where is this trillion dollars coming from, and what is it protecting against? (2) Everything causes cancer. Including, famously, a suit to have Starbucks coffee in California labelled as carcinogenic [0]. And coal dust causes cancer, which we've put up with for literal centuries. What are the actual risks are here? Carcinogens aren't a rare thing, a lot of people already die of cancer, because we're surrounded by them. A few more in exchange for the sort of upside nuclear promises is, observing the actual state of things, a good trade. So what are the real numbers you're talking? At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. Probably nat gas too. (3) Nobody is building plants like Chernobyl in this century. That design was from last century. (4) Bonus points, where are you getting this from? Because a lot of the scary post-Chernobyl modelling was done on a Linear-No-Threshold model that is a good case study in people applying excessive safety to nuclear, assuming that it is much more hazardous than we have any evidence for. > It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk. Nuclear would be cheaper if it was held to sane safety standards that are comparable to what we're putting up with literally right now. I've lived next to coal plants. That is worse for my health than if I had been living in Fukushima when the plant melted down. Nobody in my town was particularly worried about the risk though because that would be remarkably stupid. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-cancer-california-798750 https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-canc...

Kon5ole 3y ago
>You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Not at all, it was a mere 93 grams of misplaced material and just one of many many examples of this happening all over the world. The US generates 20 000 000 times as much high level waste every year, and luckily they spend the money required to keep it safe and not end up in the wrong places. >It isn't that dangerous. Think about it for a second - a nuclear fire during a few weeks in Ukraine has caused reindeer over 1000 miles away to be deemed unsuitable for human consumption for over 35 years. It really is mindboggling how far-reaching in both time and space that accident has been, and it wasn't even a worst-case scenario! Ignoring the facts and just stating out of the blue that "It's not that dangerous" might be a good coping mechanism but it's not factual. So, it's dangerous - and the danger should be weighed against the benefits compared to the options. As of at least now in 2024 we get cheaper electricity from solar panels even after converting solar electricity to hydrogen gas and back to electricity. So nuclear is not cost-competitive even when we ignore the trillion dollar risks it carries (No estimates for the cost of nuclear includes the cost of a disaster, governments take that risk from the operators). As we have seen the past few years in Europe it's also not very reliable. Plants in France, Finland and Sweden have gone offline several times during the year, taking with them a large percentage of the total electricity production of the countries they are in. Nuclear means many eggs in each basket so to speak. Why should we aim to build electricity sources that are expensive and vulnerable in addition to carrying a proven risk to food production for decades in a 1000 mile radius, when we already have cheaper options in the form of renewables and storage? If nuclear was 1/10th the cost of the safer options, I could see a point in debating the risks. But when it is actually MORE expensive? It makes absolutely no sense IMO.
oneshtein 3y ago
> At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. It's not a debate about coal vs nuclear. Nuclear is better than coal, but worse than renewables.
- roenxi 3y ago
  I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. Nuclear is uncompetitive but still in the conversation at the current absurdist standard. It'd be an easy winner on a realistic standard. The harm of nuclear and solar is similar (on average, about 0) but nuclear can deliver a lot more bang for buck. There is a two pronged argument against nuclear, one prong the somewhat ignorant argument that the risk is excessive and the other argument that it costs too much. If we use evidence and handle the risk to a sane standard, it is reasonable to expect it'll be dirt cheap and the other argument falls away. People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. All the places that have heavily invested in solar have gut-wrenchingly high electricity prices. If nuclear was given a fair shot it's got a great chance of winning the fight for the power source with the best cost-benifit ratio.